Fujifilm X-T3 Review

When the Fujifilm X-T2 arrived, it was more than just a modest upgrade to the already impressive X-T1, most notably in terms of autofocus and video. While the new X-T3 hasn't changed the overall design of the camera it repeats the same trick: representing a significant step forward.

The X-T3 brings with it a brand new sensor, improved autofocus and video performance that makes it competitive with Panasonic's GH5, taking the X-T series from being a very good stills camera to one of the best stills/video hybrids on the market.

With its classic looks, attractive photos and superb video, it's the APS-C camera to beat.

What's newsworthy, I think, is the retrograde step. Usually these things improve.

And it could be pertinent to a low-lighter. when I had an XPro 1, I found jpeg 6400 the acceptable limit (I'm a jpeg shooter). Had the next gen been retrograde I would not have updated. Which is effectively what happened, as XPro2 had weird and unusable jpeg skin smoothing from ISO1600 and up. I eventually switched systems. Though I still have an XA2.

No, you are the silly one. I don't shoot at such a high ISO either, but since the setting is there, why would you not want to assess its performance ? Because you're afraid of objective testings which could tarnish the street cred of your brand ? Don't be such a fanboy.

Some Reviews onto the Web (google it!) already stated, that the X-T3 is currently *the Best* APS-C Camera out there into 2018 - and i don't see a reason, why it shouldn't be this way. Why is DPR splitting hairs here?! I can't remember, for as long as back into 1999 - that there was a post like that from DPR about any other camera, and ISO 51200. I do like the Website really, but it's pretty clear, DPR Stuff is somehow biased against Pentax, and into the near past, there is some shift against Fujifilm, too...it seems....not a good, neutral development, if one would ask me....

The X-T3 have subtle, neglible HighISO performance compared to the X-T2 - OMG, 1st world problems! The AF & every other feature is being optimized, a whole new camera, and being better than the great X-T2, also.

@marc petzold - They are simply comparing one variable in two different cameras, because of all the talk about it on this forum.I do not think DPR is biased. If Pentax comes out with a new camera, I think their will be a lot of talk about it on this forum and maybe a test.I have seen too much paranoia on this forum.

Someone actually wrote "but since it's there, why wouldn't you want to use it?" And there is the problem. Or the solution seeking a problem. My kitchen has better specs than the neighbors' because I have a fire extinguisher. It's a nice feature to have but I don't plan on using it.

That isn't a problem - other-wise one can bash any other camera onto the market, for not having technical clean ISO at 51200 - and simply, there isn't one, not even the A7S II, not any FF or even MF Camera on the market into 2018. <busted> Horses for courses.

Again, shooting at that high ISO is more than a joke. People should keep the church into the village, instead complaining about useless rubbish. Even with Fullframe, ISO 51200 is ridiculous in terms of image noise.

If people are complaing about noise at these high ISO speeds, they should seek out for another hobby, no offense. Gosh, what would Ansel Adams say about ISO 51200? Imagine that...or Alfred Stieglitz? Get a Life, guys! Get out, and make pictures - instead of complaining about silly things.

@marc If I encounter a compelling scene where the choice is shooting at ISO 51200 or not getting the shot I will shoot at 51200. One of my more popular images, taken at night from a boat on the Ganges, was shot this way. This high ISO analysis is not irrelevant.

just reading the commentary here made me think -- hang on 51k is unusable anyway so what are dpr thinking about in going on about it! At 25k, using the dark scene which is much more useful for getting a representative result, I do (using C1 11.3 Pro) see a bit more grain but the X-T3 is both brighter, more contrasty and detailed which is probably more valuable overall. Up to 12.8k the T3 seems to me better overall and the value of having a backlit sensor is clearly shown.

Although there's no actual harm perhaps in mentioning the fact that the X-T3 loses its marbles at the highest extended setting, such a comparison should really come with a health warning that this is in fact irrelevant in the real world. Perhaps this setting can be used in black and white but in that case, the extra grain might even be seen as a bonus.

The only reason I've given more attention to these highest ISOs is because these were the areas where the X-T3 seemed to fall behind its predecessor. I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm mainly testing whether it's just a side-effect of using Adobe's raw converter. Which it isn't.

That's exactly what i was telling on DR discussions a few years ago... it always depends on the shootingstyle. That's also why I never upgraded to a Mark IV (ok, second, first was the ridiculous price) and I'm still very happy with the "messy" Canon 5DM3 sensor. It's good for *my* work. But some people need more and Fuji wants to compete with full frame. So the judgement is that hard.

@SndosasdDo you have the same dpreview-site as I do? Just enter "RAW" and "ISO 51200" then Canon 5D Mark III, Fuji X-T3 and compare. You would be surprised, Fuji is nothing steem-rolling, it's already flat on the street. 3-4 year old fullframe sensor crush the X-T3.

Yup, you can't trick physics. And saying that the XT3 is better or just as good as FF in all aspects is silly. But your assertion that it can't compete with FF is also silly, since you ignore the massive speed and video improvements among other merits the XT3 holds that no Canon DSLR can touch.

I just did this and the difference is surprisingly low - which is a compliment to the X-T3. So yes, based on this the X-T3 is certainly competitive relative to the 5DIII. The real gap (for both cameras) is with the Nikon D850.

There is not steam rolling of the XT-3 over the 5DIII. As @Samaistuin suggested rather than looking st charts look at the produced images instead. For example as seen in the comparison between the z7 and the A7RIII one could say they are on par in teams of DR but one does see more Color splotching in the Sony. End of the day it is about the images produced right?

With raw setting one can see that the xt3 is on par with the 6 years older 5III. I remember hearing some where that sensor tech gains you about 1/5 stop per year. That seems about right here.

HOWEVER, it doesn’t and never will remove ten fact that APS-c to FF is a 1 stop different all tech the same. These is the physics you can’t get around.

So while the Xt3 is on par with the 5D3, it is most definitely not better or even close to the D850... in fact it is about 1 stop behind it... go figure.

@vscd As a former user of a 5D3, I would never use that sensor as the basis of an argument in favor if FF—unless you like pattern noise and red shadows. If we're talking DOF, physics is immutable. If we're talking sensor noise and DR, superior tech can close the gap.

@tlinn,In banding you're right.The 5DM3 sensor is not the show-of for a fullframe. You are also correct in shadows and so on. I second that. *BUT*, noise on high ISO is defintely better. And the sensor is 3-4 years old now, the difference from a X-T3 to a recent Nikon/Sony/5DM4 is even higher...without the drawbacks of the older 5DM3 technology in it.

Ironically, the 5D Mark III is about the same at that ISO as the X-T2. It's also double the weight, double the size, and loses the exposure preview of mirrorless. That being said, use whatever tool works best for you.

Nothing ironic about it. Comparing a sensor from 2012 to one from 2016 is just silly, especially when people are trying to justify that crop is at the level of FF. By the same logic I can say that camera in the iphone X is just as good as FF (from the year XXXX).

The constant argument people seem to keep having is how crop is catching up and the FF is meaningless. However that has never changed. Having a car that is behind another one by 1 car length, and they are both traveling at exactly the same speed in a straight line literally means the one that is behind will never catch up.

All tech the same. FF has 2x the sensor area as a crop sensor. That literally means that it has 2x the area for total light gathering, and is thus ALWAYS 1 stop better. That is it.

Now when you get to talking about lenses, DOF, FOV, complexity of a FF system vs crop, things get a little more complicated.

That said. At this point they are both just as good depending on what you want/need.

Seeing the fuji files, it is obvious that when it comes to actual pictures technology has advanced far enough that a regular client won't care what camera you took the image with when it comes to IQ.

However, there are obvious physics oriented advantage to FF when it comes to the look of images, and that is DOF. No matter how you slice it a FF sensor will give you shallower DOF (or at least the potential to do so).

However, the crop sensor will give you more reach. It is far easier to have zoom lenses with longer ranges. They tend to be cheaper to produce, same for the lenses, and they tend to be lighter. Once you go for the fast lenses to try to match the FF DOF advantage you hit high costs, size and weight. Lastly, because they are easier to produce we see that certain technological advancements are better for them, such as 4k video since the sensor size allows for faster over all read out etc.

To my eyes the Nikon D500 has less noise but uses more noise reduction. I think the difference is neglidgible.However the choice of lenses is different for me (as a Nikon D500 owner):3rd party lens choice is still a little better for Nikon, but that might change,and APS-C lens choice from Fuji is much better than from Nikon!

Pixel peeping is reaching it's peak. In similar class cameras differences are meaningless enough to not worry about it much. One camera is better at low ISO one is better at high. No doubt Sony makes sweet sensors and Ferrari makes sweet engines, McLaren cars are just as fast or sometimes faster. Do you prefer the wild looks of Lamborghini, the heritage of Porsche, the engineering of McLaren or the cachet of Ferrari? Really we are dealing with super car performance when it comes to modern cameras especially IQ. Focus and lens quality are my priorities now. BTW I think Fujifilm cameras are really cool and I like their film simulations.

Why DPreview are not saying anything about the bad metering system on the camera. On less dynamic range scene, its always underexpose. XT1 did a way better job.I saw topics on that since the fuji XT2 came out, and shutdown by fuji fans comments ( by the way I am fuji lover, but I am transparent)@DPreview, I can provide pictures to prove it :)

You can say your message differently, without hurting anyone. On top of that what is your purpose to answer like that ? That said :The metering system of the XT2 and XT3 always underexpose in low dynamic range scene, yes, the metering master is the photographer, but 100% of those pictures need at least 2/3 extra stop. What is the purpose of fuji? we dont know exactly? Some are saying, its a way to have better score compared to ISO, some are calling it "highlight priority mode" that fuji did on purpose to save the highlight ... but no word by dpreviewIf we don't open topics like that, fuji will not change anything. But if one time, dpreview, fujirumors, or other big players just mention it, fuji will explain the strategy of metering they are using and adapt if needed.Have a nice end of day my friend dual12

I think it's biggest improvement is the AF and the burst rate .. I really appreciate a fast AF - but I really don't need a higher burst rate .. IQ should have been more important to the developers of the X-T3 :-( - but at least it has 2 Card Slots ;) Canon forgot the 2nd one in all of it's recent cameras ..

So if I had to pick between Canon EOS R (or 6DM2), Nikon Z6/7 or X-T3 - I would pick the X-T3 for sure ...

@ZeBebito...has anyone seen DPAF, new features, GPS, NFC, Tiltscreen, WLAN and WAY better Autofocus on the Canon 6DM2? The hate was immense for a few specs... what do you expect? The laughings and hate from Fujiusers was high back then. The knife cuts on both sides... now you see how ridiculous the fanboys of the other side of the river can be.

Even though the NIkons can go to ISO 100, I still think they need to compare apples to apples, and use ISO 160 or ISO 200 as a base, since the XT2 only goes to 200 (lowest unboosted minimum ISO), and the XT3 to 160. Just my opinion. May not make much of a difference in the lab tests or real world performance,.

ISO is the DR of 2018. And Fuji even "cheats" on ISO... mostly it's one stop less than displayed (f.e. Take manual mode and the same time and f-stop on a Nikon/Sony/Canon and on Fuji - compare the pictures) Fuji is roughly 1/2-1 stop darker.

I think for those who have an XT2 the upgrade to an XT3 is marginal (you gain about 2MP and about 1/3 of a stop in terms of ISO). I don't think things like 4k have been improved at all (still think it's at 10-20 min max without battery grip.) And i think generally on the low ISO side, there isn't much of a difference, but the higher end there probably is and I think that's where many mfrs tend to focus on the most in newer revisions of bodies.

@sirhawkeye64 - I always wonder why people reply to say, an Amazon product question with "I don't know, I don't own this model." Similarly, I don't know why people comment on things they clearly have no knowledge of (other than to spread disinformation, I suppose).

OK you have a point, but the specs given in that screen shot are not entirely accurate as well. Take the 4k for example. In some circumstances, it can do a 30 minute video, if you do something like 24p, but 30p, which most people would probably prefer, seems to cap out at 20min. This info is directly on the XT3 sales brochure. Yes for example it can record 30 minute videos, but at a lower frame rate). The 20min cap for 4k30 is a bit longer than the XT2's 10 or 15 minutes, but only by 5 minutes.

..if you *GET* a fast lens. If you only use 200mm or smaller it's no problem. If you want more it's a big problem. Fuji want to compete with the large Canon/Nikon/Sony so it should also compete with daily workhorses @ISO12800-51200 for sportphotography. Period.

Yes, for me. If your lenses have a maximum aperture of f8, yes I can understand that you need 12,800. With f1.4 glass, I can easily shoot at night at ISO 640 with no problems at all. I am not a sports photographer if that's your thing.

@ZeBebitoFuji X-T3 want to compete with Fullframe, on fullframe ISO12800 is nothing unusual. Physically the APS-C is always one stop worse, but that's like sayin "JEHOVA" in Fujiforums. Why? I think the Fuji performs *terrific* but it's not up to a fullframe D810 or 5DM4. The problem is not that they can't compete, the problem is that they think they can...

Where does Fuji say the X-T3 can compete with full frame exactly? In high ISO, no, it can't. In video is WAY better, and in overall user's experience is way better too. There are more things around photographs or video besides a one-stop noisier sensor.

It's the marketing from Fuji itself (X-trans) and a religion on fujirumours.com or other fanbased sided. Yes, it's ridiculous. But they pray it again and again. Results now prove them wrong.

Videowise the XT3 is a *monster*, I was shocked how much better the video from depreview on the X-T3 was than the one from the EOS-R. Fully Admitted. But I'm a photographer, no vlogger, I couln't care less about 4k than having my cam in red/yellow color.

"Yes, for me. If your lenses have a maximum aperture of f8, yes I can understand that you need 12,800. With f1.4 glass, I can easily shoot at night at ISO 640 with no problems at all. I am not a sports photographer if that's your thing."

Even with F1.8 lenses and F2.8 zooms. I shoot concerts every so often, and some venues don't have great lighting. If you want to freeze action, or have your lenses perform better (my wide angle is F4, and I prefer shooting it at F5.6) you need to make up that light somewhere.

Richard, it's absolutely fantastic you used an alternative RAW converter to test significant differences in a camera line for which Adobe is known to be a poor choice.

Iridient Developer offers controls even closer to the RAW data (EVF slider which precisely reflects EVF). You might enjoy working more with Iridient Developer for your technical RAW checks (a second opinion processor) as there's a lot less interface fluff and hidden processing going on with ID. For better and worse, ID is like being in a digital darkroom. You can almost smell the chemicals and see the bath timers.

We live in glorious times when pixel peeping at ISO 25600 is worth an article. And I agree with some other posters - resolution actually looks better, even at those extreme ISOs. I wonder why dpreview staff only looks at noise?

Because it't not really true, what you say.Up to ISO 1600 the T3 looks better (finer details, about same noise level), at 3200 they look about the same, and from there on the T3 start to loose... as i said before, between T3@25.600 and T2@512.000 there is virtually no difference (in RAW comparison).

For one, i prefer the gaining in low ISO ... so i kind of welcome the change. But if you plan to shoot ISO 6400 and up, it is an actual fact you should consider objectively. Anyway, you should probably go FF anyway if that is the case :)

So many photographers have only taken this up since the digital era, so they don't realise that anything over ISO 400 is pretty cool, coming from an era where 100, 200 or 400 were your standard choices.

@User9362470513well... whatever, in the early days of cars 70km/h was considered racing speed. Today legal speed in most countries on highways is 130km/h. Should we drive around 50km/h and pretend that faster is just for these new kids with their new toys? :))

It's been noticed many times how in the dpreview tests here, the noise looks better in low light shots rather than normal light. The X-T3 seems to benefit particularly from this, becoming equal if not better than X-T2 and even 5D mk III (whereas it's worse in normal light). The normal light images have ridiculous speeds (1/2500s at iso 6400? How often is that required?) and I wonder if that's one reason of this difference. On the other side, low light have very low speed (iso 3200 = 1/10s). At least in my case, if I need high iso for higher speed I never need to go faster than 1/500s. All in all, I wonder if it makes sense to use the same light for all ISO values at all.

@Causio I think it wasn't neccessary to shoot 1/2500 at ISO6400, but HOW should they show ISO6400 elseway? I think IT WAS THE AIM to show how it performs in HIGH ISO, so you have to use the corresponding times for that, even if they make no sense to you.

It's not a matter of making sense to me. It's just an unlikely way of shooting. I guess they're stuck with the parameters they defined many years ago, when Iso 3200 and above were barely a viable option for any camera. The test shot lighting is definitely not set up for three iso values.

That's exactly why we shoot the scene twice, in two very different lighting conditions.

I chose to re-process the daylight scene because it's easier to get a consistent result in Capture One than with the heavy colour cast of the low light images. If you think the low light scene will show a significantly different result, all the Raws are available for you to download and check for yourself.

I'm not sure how likely would be to shoot 1/10s @iso 3200 in low light (stabilized lens? maybe. Tripod? You'd likely shoot lower speed with lower iso) but anyway, it's understandable that changing speed/aperture at any shot would introduce more variables in the outcome. I just wanted to point out that higher shutter speed apparently can increase the noise (in fact, normally a brighter image shows less noise but this tests pushed to extreme, sort of unlikely conditions show the opposite) and we'll have to live with shutter speeds varying from 1/1250s to 1/10 sec for the same iso.

@Richard - yes, you are correct. However you only treat in the article the good light situation. As i said, the low light comparison seems to show no significant difference between the T2 & T3 & D500 & A6500 (on very careful inspection i would still say the D500 is still the winner, but... at first look they are really, really close)

That would make the good light super-high ISO more of a curiosity than an actual camera under-performance in high ISO, don't you think?Also, don't you think it worth adding that info in the article?

DPR uses Adobe Camera Raw because it provides a consistent standard across different camera brands and is by far the most commonly used engine for RAW processing. They went above and beyond in this particular article by including Capture One as well, since it is also quite popular and many people prefer it for X-Trans. Almost nobody uses manufacturers' supplied software because it is always garbage.

Madness to try to achieve uniformity; far better, I would think, to achieve the very best results a camera is capable of producing. I understand your point re camera makers' software - I've tried Nikon's, Canon's, and Fuji's so far, and I have to say, Fuji's is way beyond Canikon's. It delivers wonderful results that reflect what I'm seeing in the best jpegs SOOC. Fuji's color science is unique - the subtle tonal gradations are very hard to reproduce in LR or Capture One. I'm giving Capture One a trial because they're now officially aligned with Fuji, but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that it improves on Fuji's own X-RAW Studio in real-world, unprejudiced trials.

In some instances, the supplied software just mimics the JPEGs, in other instances (such as Capture One for Fujifilm, it doesn't). But the idea of 'trying to achieve the very best' is a fools errand.

It would make the result dependent on which of us processed the images and ensure eternal complaints about the particular settings we use in each case. "Oh, this camera is better than DPR has made it look because they chose this setting instead of...."

Well if you go to photons to photos by Bill Claff and check the read-noise curves we see X-T3 does indeed have higher read noise than the X-T2 at high ISO. Similar to the Sony A9, having higher read noise than the A7RIII/A7III due to the much higher clocked ADC's. However, A9 high ISO barely look worse than the A7III since it's read noise is only significantly worse at ISO's below 640. It's sort of the opposite of the XT-3, which has lower read noise at low ISOs than the XT-2 but higher at high ISO's. However, what Idon't understand is the X-T3 DR is higher at all ISO than the X-T2 yet read noise is worse at high ISO. Does this mean the X-T3 has more highlight latitude that outweighs effects of read noise at high ISO?

The conclusion should be that the X-T3 has slightly higher noise at higher ISO but still show more DETAILS. Not sure how Dpreview can miss that fact? And also, 100% crop comparisons corresponds to a huge print size, tell us how large a print with good quality you can make at ISO25600 instead. From my own tests, I know it will be enough for most needs, even professional. And how often do you shoot at ISO25600 btw?

Infact, it is *exactly* about lenses because the ISO depends heavily on your f-stop and you asked how often we shoot ISO25600. I don't shoot more than ISO12800 regularly but the sportsphotographers I know use ISO 51200 very often. Try to shoot fast Motorsports with a 500mm f4 or TC 2x @f8.... any you will notice ISO6400 is *NOTHING* in real life.

Lot of dudes do. Using an APS-C camera is a lot like the humiliating feeling you get when driving a safe, reliable, versatile Honda Civic hatchback when you just know that chicks would dig you so much more and men would finally respect you if you drove a Dodge Hellcat. How do I know? I drove a 1993 Corolla station wagon for 10 years, talk about humiliating. The only upside was I saved enough by avoiding car payments to buy a D810 and a few very nice lenses. And I’ve upgraded my ride too, I’m now rolling in a car that was built in 2001.

Images look a bit soft and mushy to me, even at low ISOs. Probably not something most would notice in real world use, but when I compare the studio scene to the cameras I own (A6500 & A7rii) I see the difference in sharpness.

I'd like to see samples from the X-T3 converted via Capture One Pro, or Iridient X-Transformer, or -Developer, if you guys are on the Apple Platform. ACR from PS or Lightroom (with built-in ACR) doesn't handle X-trans Files still not that great into 2018 - whileas Fujifilm X-Trans tech Sensors have been around since 2012, it started with the X-Pro1 & X-E1.

Re family videos: I took hundreds of my son, from baby to adolescent - I did videography professionally so I had a pro vidcam - they were very well done, and creative. We were harried parents, never had time to look at them so i put the DV tapes in a drawer.

When he went to college we decided to look at them. It was surprising. - seeing ourselves 20 years ago and our son as a baby and toddler had such an emotional affect on us that we could not watch after one or two. They went back in the drawer. Maybe we will try again, maybe not.

Lesson: perhaps documenting your kids growing up is not always a good idea! Of course, YMMV.

Youtube videos are perhaps the most popular videos to make. Many successful YouTubers are shooting their videos with DSLRs and mirrorless. The world is shifting. You need to go along or be left behind. Heck, people aren't buying iPhones to make a simple call anymore.

I've been serious on stills photography for many decades, but nowadays when making visual records of family, I entirely take videos. I feel that videos help capture family memories much better than photos.

So, for me, I cannot understand the very many photographers who express confusion about the need for video in these top cameras.

@kreislauf Actually it would hurt society. Video recording is even more valuable today than capturing stills. Let's just say you're right. In the future if you ever get into a car accident in the broad public and it was 100% the other driver's fault, I suppose someone on the street could use their Sony A7RIII to capture a still of the accident, which may not prove who's at fault. On the flip side, they may just be capturing video on the street and serendipitously filmed your accident, which could really help your case. You might wanna put some thought into that.

So you can buy a dashcam... or just expect the streets to be lined with former stills shooters that now shoot Sony video of public roadways for ...reasons.

Recording video is hardly a new ability, today it's just done on different hardware. People have had whole libraries of video tapes sitting on shelves for decades, and the more of it there is, the less they watch it. Now we've got this ability to create hours and hours of video and invisibly stockpile it on drives in quantities that will preclude people from ever being able to consume it.

Video's not unimportant, but let's keep some perspective about what's "hurting society" and what's just people walking around video taping hours of useless footage never to be seen again.

People can't comprehend the concept of multiple lines of camera for different targeted users. This is a stills camera that just happens to have video features, folks. Not every camera has to be everything to everyone. Your minivan doesn't need scissor doors and your McLaren doesn't need a trailer hitch.

I am really tempted to upgrade from xt1, but i would love to have IBIS for video, so will wait for the release of XH2. I personally don't understand why the exist of the XH series and why can't Fuji squeeze the IBIS into the XT body. The sensor in Fuji is smaller than Sony but the body is as big.

Go look around at professional video cameras and report back how many have IBIS. It's just not necessary, adds extra complexity, size, power usage, heat generation... There are several good reasons that some people (namely stills shooters) don't care to have it. Hell, even Panasonic's people have talked about these factors, and they're huge users of the technology.

Why can't there be two lines of camera, one for you, one for people not like you?

I have the X-T10 and I am very happy with it. I look at the studio scene comparison tool as a matter of interest nothing more. I have to say though that at ISO6400 the X-T3 isn't as good. So much for the "quantum leap".

@wy2lam "It has more to do with how good the X-T10 actually" Yes, that is the preferably way of looking at it. I photography landscapes and still life so a blazing fast AF is not important to me (highly desired by others I know). I also shoot with manual focus lenses. So the T3 can not be described as a quantum leap for me.

Thanks for the link, there isn't that much of a difference between the T3 and T10 is there?. Makes me feel good, thanks.

the 23mm f2 is quicker than the 35mm f2 or 50mm f2 and miles ahead than the 18mm f2 or 35mm f2 on my X-T1 and I consider it as almost instant in good light using the 9 PDAF I have.It should be even quicker on the X-T2 or X-T3, so it doesn't really matter, does it? Bonus is the super silent mode on the new f2 primes. I rarely notice the AF motor. Very different for the XF35 f1.4 (wow, I got rid of that very quickly!), XF18 and XF27...

But even the XF23 f2 doesn't touch the 27mm f2.8 in terms of AF speed. This is my fastest lens. I have to say, I love the 27mm for portability and AF speed. People are put of by the "limited" f2.8 and the missing aperture dial. If you can stomach both, get a (inexpensive) XF27 :)and there is bokeh, btw. it's just not rendering the background as a mushy cream

I am not so sure about this: Skin tones in the shade show a strong magenta cast. For example look a the little girl with the pretty smile on page 2, or the first pic of a lady in the gallery. Though it is hard to tell whether this is the camera's fault or just the ambient light.

Agree completely. I currently have Canon, Sony, Panasonic GH5, and Fuji XT20, and always find that the colour straight out of the Fuji (even the Raw) is the one that needs the least, or no, work. Just back from three weeks in Denmark with the XT20, and barely having to adjust the Raws at all. I'm loving it.

I can't wait for my X-T3 to arrive! The lack of IBIS is...meh, no big deal to me. I own the 18-55, 80 macro, 50-140 and 100-400 lenses and all have OIS.

The only non OIS lens I own is the 23 f/2 and it's always paired with my X-E3, which doesn't have IBIS as well. Guess what? I'm still able to take excellent photos without IS! Imagine that! The IBIS thing has been discussed to eternity. So much whining over IBIS.

Because it is a feature Fuji should have included. Same as canon in the R.You can also drive and go from A to B in a 20 years old skoda. Imagine that! Doesn't mean that a brand new audi is not a better car, or that a brand new Skoda should not include today's features.

This isn't an Audi and a Skoda, it's the era where cars started including electronic stability control. Sometimes it's useful but you can get around the track with or without the feature and experienced users often want the option to turn it off.

No IBIS shouldn't be added to the X-T3. Fuji already has it in the X-H1. If you want the new sensor with IBIS, wait for the X-H2. IBIS doesn't run on magic fairy dust. It drains the battery faster, it adds weight and bulk to the camera. If I'm shooting on a tripod, why do I want this? I've also shot tons of hand held without IBIS and no problems. I thank Fuji for offering the consumer a choice of no IBIS (X-Tx) or IBIS (X-Hx).

I had an X-T1, and I was very ket down with the extended DR feature. Even when it was on max., it didn't even come close to my RX100-3 which offered extended DR with multiple exposures. Hence, it was not a keeper. Now, Apple is accomplishing the same with 'smart DR' with one exposure. Where does the new X-T3 fall into the extended DR picture? If it's like the X-T1, it's a no starter. If it matches the old Sony technology, I'm on-board. Maybe when I want extended DR, I should look to Apple as they seem to be up to the task with one exposure in their new camera/phones.

The new phones take multiple exposures at the same time (they have the software and the processing power to do that.) Thus no motion blur. Go to an Apple Store and see for yourself. Yes, you can dumb a new iPhone down to act like an X-T3 by turning auto HDR off, but leaving it on leaves 'fiddling with the ends of the exposure curves' of the X-T3 in the dust. The question is- do you want a nice hunk of metal and glass with nice machined dials you can use as a paper weight, or do you want nice, fully exposed photos with shadow and highlight detail that will fill 90% of your needs (social media.) I don't think most people on social media 'pixel-peep' like the writers here do, nor do they care anything about pixels- or more importantly, what camera one used to take the photo. I've never had someone ask me "What camera did you use?" on Instagram. Some of them were with my RX100-MKIII (which takes marvelous HDR photos,) but most are with my iphone with the HDR setting always turned on.

hdr is rarely used or used judiciously by real photographers .with care and taste .. and overused or used to enhance otherwise crappy photos taken with tiny sensors to make them more appealing when viewed on laptops or cellphones .... if you care about the image you capture, you are using a camera period the data that only a sensor with hundreds of sq mm of sensor area ..can honestly and succinctly record with honest resolution and an honest single exposure

. and if you doing selfies or illustrating your social life, tiny sensor phones suffice well.. a 17 sq mm or 2 or even 3 minuscule sensors can be synthetically combined to a reasonable facsimile of a real photo computationally ..... its a technique on the rise for internet use.

the single sensors seen on phones simply dont have the ability to take an excellent photo , though this is changing .... this is why the multi sensor arms race has begun because several sensors can computationally hide the defecit of single sensors struggling alone .

Fuji is just milking the XT series. When you main competitor is Sony a6500 with a boat load of features and specially the biggest feature of all IBIS, and you know Fuji already knows how to get IBIS in the camera since the H1 already has, you would think Fuji would include it. This is a 1/10 step forward. Why would I purchase this now when you know. they will come out with the XT4 with IBIS; even if they do not, I'll wait until XT### would include it. Its not like the XT1 is already obsolete.

Same here. I have the X-T2. IBIS is probably the only feature that will make me upgrade, and I do not want massive heavy X-H cameras.

The point is, if I have to get a massive, heavy X-H1 to get IBIS, why not go Full Frame where the FF cameras are mostly the same weight as the X-H1. Sure, many FF lenses are heavier, but the short focal length lenses I use are comparable in weight.

With 'Deep Learning' autofocus, crazy-fast burst speeds and refined ergonomics, the E-M1X is the most focused action and sports shooting camera that Olympus has ever made. Here's how it squares up against some key Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competitors.

At its X-Summit event in Dubai, Fujifilm announced a major firmware update for the X-T3, coming in April. Firmware 3.0 will improve Eye-AF performance, and is promised to enhance AF tracking and face detection.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.